Jump to content
jasony

Pro vs Non-Pro gear

Recommended Posts

Hi gang,

I usually just lurk and sponge off of the great wisdom here, but I've been wondering something lately and wanted to pose the question.

I've been looking at portable recorders lately. I'll probably be purchasing one soon (most of my work has been recorded in-camera lately. I'm not doing major stuff yet that would require a Nagra or SD788 or anything). I just wondered what everybody's take was on the huge price difference in recorders. Here's an example.

Assuming all you need is a basic 2 track portable digital recorder, it seems there are quite a few options. At one end, the Marantz PMD670 is a 2 channel recorder that saves in MP2, MP3, and 16 bit PCM audio. It's got onboard XLR inputs with phantom power. No timecode. Retails for $699

At the other end, the Sound Devices 722 has roughly the same features, but retails for $2500.

What's the difference? Is it really worth it to spend almost 4x?

Both units can record high quality audio to CF, both have dual XLR inputs with phantom (although the quality of the converters on the Marantz might be lower than those on the SD), neither one has timecode. Most people aren't going to use the on-board phantom power anyway (I'd use the power from my SD302).

Heck, I've looked at some of the smaller hand-held units like the Zoom H4 (4 track, records 24 bit 96khz with xlr inputs). And it's only $299.

My point here, I guess, is that technology always improves, and what was state-of-the-art twenty years ago, and worked on Academy Award winning films  then, is laughably obsolete now. What is state of the art now (read: expensive) is nice, but the low end is still better than what was used decades ago. All of the portable units use the same technology (CF cards or hard drives), they all save as digital files, and assuming they're all uncompressed files (okay, some save as MP3's so they can be disregarded), what's really the difference? Build quality? D/A converter quality? Reliability? Or is a large part of the price difference in the name? Maybe the fact that "Consumer" and "Pro" gear has gotten so close in quality and features means that there's not that much difference any more?

I can forsee a day when a small sub-$500 deck has 8 channels of good quality uncompressed audio with timecode in a durable enclosure. Technology and competition are pushing us in that direction. Of course, by that time, the pro decks will be made out of machined molybdenum with diamond-tipped handles and gold plated XLR inputs- and this will more desired and considered "pro" at that point. But as the RedOne camera has so dramatically shown us, tech gets cheaper and better all the time. At some point don't we cross a threshold where the state of the art is so cheap that there's no reason to spend yourself into debt to get the job done?

Is professional embarrassment the only thing that would keep you from showing up on a small scale 2 channel job with a pro-sumer deck like the Marantz, or even the Zoom? Obviously, this doesn't apply to the big multi-track jobs that require gear that doesn't have a prosumer or low end equivalent.

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts about this.

Jason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi gang,

I usually just lurk and sponge off of the great wisdom here, but I've been wondering something lately and wanted to pose the question.

I've been looking at portable recorders lately. I'll probably be purchasing one soon (most of my work has been recorded in-camera lately. I'm not doing major stuff yet that would require a Nagra or SD788 or anything). I just wondered what everybody's take was on the huge price difference in recorders. Here's an example.

Assuming all you need is a basic 2 track portable digital recorder, it seems there are quite a few options. At one end, the Marantz PMD670 is a 2 channel recorder that saves in MP2, MP3, and 16 bit PCM audio. It's got onboard XLR inputs with phantom power. No timecode. Retails for $699

At the other end, the Sound Devices 722 has roughly the same features, but retails for $2500.

What's the difference? Is it really worth it to spend almost 4x?

Both units can record high quality audio to CF, both have dual XLR inputs with phantom (although the quality of the converters on the Marantz might be lower than the SD), neither one has timecode. Most people aren't going to use the on-board phantom power anyway (I'd use the power from my SD302).

Heck, I've looked at some of the smaller hand-held units like the Zoom H4 (4 track, records 424 bit 96khz with xlr inputs). And it's only $299.

My point here, I guess, is that technology always improves, and what was state-of-the-art twenty years ago, and worked on Academy Award winning films  then, is laughably obsolete now. What is state of the art now (read: expensive) is nice, but the low end is still better than what was used decades ago. All of the portable units use the same technology (CF cards or hard drives), they all save as digital files, and assuming they're all uncompressed files (okay, some save as MP3's so they can be disregarded), what's really the difference? Build quality? D/A converter quality? Reliability? Or is a large part of the price difference in the name? Maybe the fact that "Consumer" and "Pro" gear has gotten so close in quality and features means that there's not that much difference any more?

Is professional embarrassment the only thing that would keep you from showing up on a small scale 2 channel job with a pro-sumer deck like the Marantz, or even the Zoom? Obviously, this doesn't apply to the big multi-track jobs that require gear that doesn't have a prosumer equivalent.

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts about this.

Jason

I've got a Marantz 660 that does the job just fine for my needs. OTOH for the extra $1800 you get proven performance, reliability, great tech support, a unit built like a tank, and many other professional features that will make your job easier. From a $$$$ point of view it will hold it's value for years to come. It's an investment in your future.

Eric

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a Tascam HD-P2 which you can find on ebay for about $700.00 new it is a great recorder and is the lowest recorder I would buy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a complex issue with the underlying fact that consumer gear and professional gear have moved closer together in quality and feature set. There are many reasons for this but I won't dwell on those. Replying directly to the post:

"My point here, I guess, is that technology always improves, and what was state-of-the-art twenty years ago, and worked on Academy Award winning films  then, is laughably obsolete now."

Well, I don't know how funny this may be when you say "laughably obsolete" but with the digital age there has been a leveling of the playing field which began pretty much with the introduction of the Compact Disc in 1984. The analog Nagra ruled the sound for picture space for so many years because there was no other market for full track mono 1/4" synchronous recorders --- no one else needed one. Oversimplifying, when everyone "needed" digital audio (which is a self-syncing system by design) for everything from listening to mp3's all the way up to recording symphony orchestra (and of course Academy Award winning movies) there was a whole new arena created.

"Maybe the fact that "Consumer" and "Pro" gear has gotten so close in quality and features... there's not that much difference any more?"

There is some truth in this but there are still fundamental issues of feature set and reliability. The one big feature that usually sets the little consumer recorders apart from the much more expensive professional units and that is the implementation of proper industry standard smpte timecode. If timecode support is not necessary, you are right that there are a lot of choices amongst the consumer machines and at a considerable savings. Regarding reliability, a $300. Tascam, Marantz, Edirol, Zoom etc. will never hold up (nor will it be as serviceable when it breaks) as a $2500 Sound Devices recorder. When doing a PROFESSIONAL job (one that by definition you are being paid) there is a responsibility to your employer to insure this reliable and predictable performance from the gear. Sure, you might get through the day with your $300. recorder and the .wav files you turn in will look just like those from the $2500. recorder (but maybe not --- talk to Courtney about this) but you might not be so lucky.

"Is professional embarrassment the only thing that would keep you from showing up on a small scale 2 channel job with a pro-sumer deck like the Marantz, or even the Zoom?"

I think you may have answered your own question. It is fairly obvious that there is more to consider than just the possibility of professional embarrassment.

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest jimg

I agree with a lot of what Jeff says, but would add that one thing that sets the professional gear apart is ease of use and utility. For example, I make a good part of my living doing interviews for PBS-ish docs and other sorts of talking-head intensive programs. I bought an MP3 recorder for transcriptions but often find myself using my 744T for that purpose after Sound Devices restored recording in that format. It may seem like overkill, but there is a utility and ease of use that just isn't there in the MP3 recorder. If I'm traveling via air and space/weight are at a premium, sure I'll use the consumer recorder. But otherwise, I'm just happier with the Sound Devices recorder.

Also consider that you are investing in your future, which always pays off. The durability and life cycle of a professional device are almost always better. The $700 for the Marantz or the Tascam recorder seem like a deal now, but the Sound Devices recorder will prove more economical over time.

Best regards,

Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although consumer and "pro-sumer" gear can often match professional equipment in delivered results, there are good reasons to work with the best tools you can afford.

You (and others) have mentioned build quality but this means more than just a sense of pleasure in handling something with "machined molybdenum with diamond-tipped handles." It also means a high order of confidence that the gear will work as promised when used on assignment. Anything, no matter how well made, can break but the consumer gear is much more vulnerable to damage when dropped, banged around going from place to place and generally given hard use. The strictly pro gear is built for this application; equipment not up to the task soon falls into disfavor.

Professional gear can also be counted on to perform up to expectations in a wide variety of conditions and circumstances. A microphone, for instance, might sound good on a test bench or reproducing tones in an anechoic chamber but have a funny resonance when used in a tiled bathroom. Many pieces of gear, even pro gear, have relative strengths and weaknesses but there are fewer nasty surprises when working with topnotch stuff.

The result of this reliability and predictable response is that I use the equipment with confidence and that translates into improved performance on my part. It is difficult for me to be at my best if I am anxious that a buzz I heard might be going on the track or if I wonder whether the mike really isolates the voice from the background as well as it might. This is a business often consumed with anxiety because one is expected to perform in circumstances where there is very little control. Not being anxious about the performance of the equipment is not a small thing.

As others have mentioned, the pro gear, much of it, is built so it my be efficiently repaired. There is some drift away from serviceability, even with pro gear, as we move into hard drive recorders but they are all much more accessible to a technician than the plastic consumer goods. And this ability to be repaired enhances resale value. Taking an extreme example, a Cantar is ghastly expensive but a 5-year old Cantar is still worth (at a guess) 70 or 80% of its purchase cost. 

Regarding the "laughably obsolete." if I had to record sound in a remote desert, I would much rather have my antique Nagra (assuming availability of 1/4" tape) than any of the MP3 recorders. With the Nagra, I am certain I would bring back a useable product.

This pro-sumer stuff does have a legitimate function in the professional world. Many use the little consumer recorders as a back-up for protection in case of a catastrophic failure of the main recording. Or they can be put into a car and sent off to make remote recordings. It's not bad stuff and can be very handy in a kit. But there are good reasons to spend money on suitably pro gear when you rely on it for your living.

And, let's not underestimate the attraction of machined molybdenum.

David Waelder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The truth is that there has been a real movement towards overlap between "pro" and "amateur (or "project")" in certain sorts of gear for some time.  I use a mix of equipment that includes what many people here would think of as "amateur", but they get the job done.  Much has been made of the assumption of there being a difference in reliability between a cheap recorder like the Tascam P2 and a Sound Devices type machine like the 702T.  I have both, use them all the time, and have found that assumption to be false, at least in "non-Iditerod" type use.  I also constantly use gear like MOTU Travelers, also less rugged, in theory, than Metric Halo or RME boxes, and again, this is not how things have turned out in practice.  In today's market, a small operator like a sound person with their own gear needs to be very canny about what will get the job done for them and their clients in a manner they both can afford, and not necessarily go for higher-price equipment because it is prettier or supposedly has some class factor.  I've been working in this business for a very long time, and the vast majority of people I've worked with could care less what I use as long as it sounds good, is cheap for them and delivers what their post people want.  That said, you also have to be vigilant about the huge amount of bad info that is out there about how workflows and equipment actually work, and know that inventing your own workflow and expecting others to go along is usually a bad idea.  Going with "industry-standard" gear is very important if you are in the rental business, but production sound is one of the last places in the movie world where an individual can configure their own system pretty much as they please as long as it gets the job done.  (Look at the ongoing sound-cart and bag discussions--a tremendous amount of creativity, experience and knowledge on display there--many many ways to skin the cat.)

Philip Perkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone with experience of Nagra 4.2, then tentatively getting into solid-state recording with a PMD660 followed by a Fostex FR2 and settling on a 702T, I'd say the difference is almost night and day. Although the PMD660 and Fostex FR2 are both capable recorders they are not what I would choose today knowing what I now know about the 702T. The PMD660 had noisier pre-amps which would be overloaded by any hot mic, was 16-bit only and made of plastic. It was a "good" unit, relatively inexpensive and I learned a lot from it. I traded up to a Fostex FR2 after much research, figuring that Sound Devices was just out of my league (I do primarily single camera double-system indie shorts and features). The Fostex FR2 had much better pre-amps that didn't get overloaded by hot mics, but I found its limiters were a joke (I often find myself boom op and recording so unable to ride the gain) so invested in a Sound Devices 302 to front the FR2. The build quality of the 302 is what I would expect of professional grade kit. Function, routing, and ergonomics were also impressive, it seemed to be made by people who understand what you need out in the field and working from a bag (no buttons controls on the top of the unit for starters!). I tried to get my Fostex FR2 upgraded with optional timecode add-in but that was more pain (and phonecalls) than it was worth. So when the opportunity arose to buy a second-hand 702T with NP65 kit, I jumped at the chance after getting my head around the "rotary menu" concept which many don't like. I sold the FR2 and kept the 302 (though I don't use it that often). Now I would say that the 702T is exactly right for the type of work I do and is the unit I should've bought in the first place. Part of the equation is trading money for convenience and longevity, but ergonomics and function are also factors. I find once I've used the menu system of the 702T to setup for the specifics of a shoot it's very much "set it and forget it" so is really a non-issue for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey guys,

I think David W. hit it on the head. (metal vs plastic) with the pro-sumer "fisher price" feel , they can easily get damaged with a little bump or drop. think of the times you drop a unit and you do the "old put your foot out" fast to help burden the fall of the gear before it crashes to the floor. (it happens to me occasionally in the rental arena,  if that happened to the fisher price recorders, there would be a problem. maybe not instantly, but soon enough. maybe on your next corporate gig. and with the pro gear they are definitely more robust and just made better. and the reliability factor increases tremendously when using the pro recorders. you can hear it in the pre amps. you can hear it in the recordings. I remember when the fr2 came out, the internal AA batts lasted like 20-25 mins. and you HAD to put a mixer in front of it.

the price does increase for the zooms etc to the sd's, but it will be worth the investment in the long run. try to factor in the support of the manufacturer and  the machinery or how it is built (ford tough) and you will be happier spending the extra $$. and for the problems/ headaches that will come with the cheaper fisher price products. its the piece of mind factor.

Scott is on to something here, the pricing for pro audio is dropping each year. and the products and features are getting better.

last thing- my buddy bought one of the early SD 744T's and showed up on set (big network TV show) he had it set up and was ready to roll day 1, and one of the producers walked by and noticed this "little" recorder, and commented he was paying the mixer all this $$ for that little recorder. he called me at lunch and told me what happened, I suggested he put up his laptop (before the ext.dvd ram and he had to burn to the laptop anyways) and told him to put up both of his PD-4's and try to beef up his cart bit more for the "bells and whistle "effect. after lunch the line producer came by to ask a few post questions and  indirectly "inspect" his cart and with the beefed up look they relaxed. they new he was a great sound mixer, they just wanted to justify his kit rental for the "dog and pony game" of the sound cart.

thanks. good subject matter. 

what about  the pro vs non pro for wireless- big $$ difference there as well.

molybdenum and unontanium, will have to wikipedia them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the internal AA batts lasted like 20-25 mins

I'd almost forgotten about that! One of the first things I did when I got the FR2 was figure out a way to power it from an external battery (this was before the RC style attachment was available). I think calling these things "Fisher Price" is a little harsh - Fisher Price is tough and built to last! ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd almost forgotten about that! One of the first things I did when I got the FR2 was figure out a way to power it from an external battery (this was before the RC style attachment was available). I think calling these things "Fisher Price" is a little harsh - Fisher Price is tough and built to last! ;-)

nice. haha.

we made a ext. np1 cup  to power the fr2 all day on a lithium 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think David W. hit it on the head. (metal vs plastic) with the pro-sumer "fisher price" feel , they can easily get damaged with a little bump or drop. think of the times you drop a unit and you do the "old put your foot out" fast to help burden the fall of the gear before it crashes to the floor. (it happens to me occasionally in the rental arena,  if that happened to the fisher price recorders, there would be a problem. maybe not instantly, but soon enough. maybe on your next corporate gig. and with the pro gear they are definitely more robust and just made better. and the reliability factor increases tremendously when using the pro recorders. you can hear it in the pre amps. you can hear it in the recordings. I remember when the fr2 came out, the internal AA batts lasted like 20-25 mins. and you HAD to put a mixer in front of it.

This is not a very persuasive argument.  Any professional that dropped a recorder to the floor would have it checked before they did another job with it no matter what brand /model it was.  The fact that an SD recorder is made of metal doesn't change this at all.  How much experience do you actually have using "fisher-price" recorders on real jobs?  I have a great deal, and if you avoid doing stupid things (always a good idea) they work fine for many if not most jobs.  There is a clear difference in the results gotten with more expensive equipment in certain areas still--wireless, boom mics, mic preamps, but file-based recorders being used on the usual run of noisy locations isn't one of them, at least in the 2 track zone. 

Philip Perkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... if you avoid doing stupid things (always a good idea) they work fine for many if not most jobs.   There is a clear difference in the results gotten with more expensive equipment in certain areas still--wireless, boom mics, mic preamps, but file-based recorders being used on the usual run of noisy locations isn't one of them, at least in the 2 track zone. 

Philip Perkins

I have to agree with Philip here and the other factor in all of this that comes with experience is knowing how to NOT do those stupid little things. I have had a fair amount of experience using gear that was not specifically built to work in a professional environment (an obvious example would be the first jobs that I did with DAT on unproven consumer machines using a new unproven format) and one of the things I learned was that each piece of gear is going to have some quirks, some liabilities, some "gotcha" that you have to look out for. I think if you use consumer gear that is equipped with obviously not industry standard professional connectors (like the ubiquitous stereo mini connector) and understanding of this liability is often sufficient to insure a higher degree of reliability in a professional environment.

-  Jeff Wexler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not a very persuasive argument.  Any professional that dropped a recorder to the floor would have it checked before they did another job with it no matter what brand /model it was.  The fact that an SD recorder is made of metal doesn't change this at all.  How much experience do you actually have using "fisher-price" recorders on real jobs?  I have a great deal, and if you avoid doing stupid things (always a good idea) they work fine for many if not most jobs.   There is a clear difference in the results gotten with more expensive equipment in certain areas still--wireless, boom mics, mic preamps, but file-based recorders being used on the usual run of noisy locations isn't one of them, at least in the 2 track zone. 

Philip Perkins

I was trying to make a example of the ruggedness of the more costly recorders then of the fisher pricey units. no I am not that stupid to drop a recorder. and you are right I don't and would not take out a plastic recorder out in the field nor would I  not rent them out to the general pubic. maybe if the enduser treated the pro sumer recorder gently and they are on a sound cart strictly as a backup, then the little money they spent would be worth there while. but for all the obvious reasons stated by the posts for this thread, I will continue to rent and use the more durable and better quality gear.

thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Eric Lamontagne

FR-2

Well, it's a hate into love relationship for me. There is absolutely no comparison to a R-09 or Zoom or MD though. Balanced inputs, mic pre-amps for those times when you don't have a mixer, adjustable gain pots for both L/R, timecode option, pull up/down, transferable metadata, the list goes on.

What I feel is unworthy is the components which were cheaped out on. Specifically the power input and timecode input and output. For me, if I can't count on it it's not worth using. Last thing that I need is the power connector to become flaky and reset itself or the timecode out RCA jack to loosen off and no longer output timecode. To me this is an excellent example of prosumer gear, gets you going and wets your appetite for more.

For me, I bought it when it first came out and it taught me about file management, names, hard drives, etc. It has since backed up EVERY show I have worked on ever since, often acting as a masterclock to a NAGRA4.2, HHBDAT, DA78, DV824.... Thousands of hours of recording, a successful investment in every way.

Still, it records excellent audio over four years later and has undergone three hardware upgrades, Timecode board, Hirose 4pin power in, Hirose 5pin timecode in/out and many software versions. I have confidence that I can take it to a job without a backup and roll the FR-2 and produce amazing audio that far exceeds DAT quality and functionality of post audio workflow WITHOUT breaking my back.

I wouldn't even dream of modifying a zoom or R-09 or the like. Nor would they even still be working today if I bought them four years ago. Whats funny is that with 2700mah AA batteries it will run for hours now, where I remember not getting an hour with pro cells!!!

Good Luck!

Eric Lamontagne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was trying to make a example of the ruggedness of the more costly recorders then of the fisher pricey units. no I am not that stupid to drop a recorder. and you are right I don't and would not take out a plastic recorder out in the field nor would I  not rent them out to the general pubic. maybe if the enduser treated the pro sumer recorder gently and they are on a sound cart strictly as a backup, then the little money they spent would be worth there while. but for all the obvious reasons stated by the posts for this thread, I will continue to rent and use the more durable and better quality gear.

thanks.

Nobody asked you to rent a plastic recorder, but don't diss them if you haven't used them.  They're working in the field in bags and on carts everyday, and doing a pretty good job for the money.

Philip Perkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody asked you to rent a plastic recorder, but don't diss them if you haven't used them.  They're working in the field in bags and on carts everyday, and doing a pretty good job for the money.

Philip Perkins

thats cool.

to each is own. what ever gear works for your respected application and you are happy with it, so be it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I derive enormous satisfaction from owning and using the best gear I can afford.  I'll drive an old car and wear clothes from Target, but I upgrade sound equipment whenever I can afford it.  The toll on my peace of mind having cheap, unreliable stuff would take the fun out of the job.  I've had to use cheap gear on jobs sometimes when the gear is rented from someone else and I find it has a huge impact on my job satisfaction.  I started out buying a lot of used pro-level gear (T-powered 416, beat Rycote zepp., AD261 mixer, Lectro 190's then 210D's, etc.)  A good way to go until you can afford new stuff.

If I worked on low-budget films that paid little money for rental perhaps I would feel differently, but if you are shooting in such a way that you do not need to rely on wireless, you can save an enormous amount of money and get good sound.  If a producer will only pay for the cheapest equipment, but then holds YOU accountable when the results are poor, then that is a very unpleasant position to be in, IMO.  And your reputation suffers.

Basically, you CANNOT skimp on microphones or wireless and get good sound.  You can use cheaper mixing panels and computer-based recording and get professional results.  You sacrifice flexibility and portability, at least.  I enjoy what I do for a living and feel that having the right tools for the job allows me to deliver results I can be proud of.  That feels better to me than driving a fancy car or wearing expensive clothes.

Okay...after posting this Off-Topic rant I went back and read the original poster's original post.  I'm kind off-topic, but I'll leave it.  I think you have a good point with recorders specifically and I can't comment on any of the pro-sumer recorders as I have not used them.  I DO think that your satisfaction level with using the equipment is worth something.

PG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of the portable units use the same technology (CF cards or hard drives), they all save as digital files, and assuming they're all uncompressed files (okay, some save as MP3's so they can be disregarded), what's really the difference? Build quality? D/A converter quality? Reliability? Or is a large part of the price difference in the name? Maybe the fact that "Consumer" and "Pro" gear has gotten so close in quality and features means that there's not that much difference any more?

I think the difference between the amateur/semi-pro and pro recorders are these:

1) better mike preamps

2) timecode

3) better construction (aluminum case vs. plastic, etc.)

4) better reliability

5) operational refinements (user interface, flexible power connections, etc.).

I'd put Cantar, Deva, Fostex, Nagra, SD,  Sonosax, etc. in the pro category, and Marantz, Tascam, Zoom, etc. in the semi-pro/consumer category. I know it's easy to dismiss the latter as "toys," but I can see they'd have their uses and applications. But I wouldn't want to rely on one for a high-pressure  "zero fault tolerance" situation. My experience is you get what you pay for -- it's a cliche, but it's sadly true.

As a sidenote, I recently got a chance to listen carefully to the Fostex FR recorder, and wasn't thrilled with the preamps. To me, the PD4 and PD6's sound a lot cleaner, but then, there's about a 10-1 price difference in what they cost (new).

--Marc W.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thats cool.

to each is own. what ever gear works for your respected application and you are happy with it, so be it.

also,

for the record. I was not dissing the fr2- or the tascam.  they have tc out (in tas.) xlr i/o's. I rented both for a long time.(sold them as the years went by) I really was talking about the under $1,000 recorders. (we know what they are)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×